- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 388 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. T. SHANTHA W/O. RAMESH RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.987, 4TH CROSS ASHOKNAGAR 2ND BLOCK BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE BENGALURU - 560 050 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NANDINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. KARUNAKARA SHETTY S/O. SHANKARASHETTY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.830, PRESENT 830/17 NEW NO.13, 13TH MAIN NEW 4TH CROSS, OLD 6TH A CROSS GUBBI VEERANNA ROAD HANUMANTHA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 019 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRIKANTH S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2022 PASSED ON IA No.II Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 IN OS No.1498/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA No.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Smt. Nandini for Sri. Bhargav V., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.1498/2020 is the real petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application clause under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under : - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 3.1 A suit in OS No.1498/2020 claim to be filed for the following reliefs in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as the suit property): PRAYER: Wherefore, the plaintiff above named most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass Judgment & Decree against the defendants - a) for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, GPA Holders or anybody acting on their behalf from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff; b) for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, GPA Holders or anybody acting on their behalf from in any way locking the premises by trespassing over the same pending disposal of the above suit; c) and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. including the orders as to the costs of this suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the premises bearing No.830, thereafter No.830/17, new No.13 measuring East to West: 25 feet and North to South: 34 feet together with building in the ground floor, first floor and second floor and bounded on the: East by: Site No.831 West by: Site No.829 North by: Site No.821 South by: Road situated at 13th Main, new 4th Cross, old 6th 'A' Cross, Gubbiveeranna Road, Hanumantha Nagar, Bangalore now comes under the limits of BBMP. 3.2 In the plaint, plaintiff contended that he is a lessee in respect of the suit property. Plaintiff contented that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a lessee as per the lease agreement entered between plaintiff and Sri. K. Srinidhi Patel on 30.11.2019. 3.3 In order to prove that he is in possession of the suit property, photographs of the suit property is placed on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 3.4 It is further contended by the plaintiff that Sri. Srinidhi Patel has executed lease agreement on 30.11.2019 which was registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Basavanagudi as Document No.8349/2019-20. 3.5 Plaintiff contended that he has paid Rs.5,00,000/- as security deposit in favour of Sri. Srinidhi Patel and duration of the lease is for a period of two years and plaintiff has also let out some portion of the schedule property in favour of other tenants acting under the clauses in the said lease agreement and those tenants are paying plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,500/- as rent in the respect of the suit property and plaintiff is paying the electricity and water consumption charges pertaining to the suit property. 3.6 Plaintiff further contented that suit property belonged to Sri. V. Thimegowda, son of Venkategowda. Thimmegowda acquired the suit property by way of a registered sale deed dated 31.08.2000 from BDA. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 3.7 It is further contented that Sri. Thimmegowda has executed a registered Will in favour of his grandson Sri. Srinidhi Patel and based on that, said Sri. Srinidhi Patel had executed the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. 3.8 It is further contented that despite the lease has not expired, defendant who has no manner of right title or interest, started interfering with the suit property and therefore, he had to file the suit for permanent injunction. 3.9 Cause of action paragraph cause of action is detailed in paragraph No.9 of the plaint which reads as under : 9. The cause of action for the suit arose when the defendants and their men attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff and also attempted to lock the premises existing in the schedule property on 20.2.2020 along with their men and subsequently when the plaintiff with the help of his men resisted the acts of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 defendants and subsequently when the defendants and their men went away from the spot stating that they would come again with large number of people and also threatened the plaintiff that they would lock the premises by overnight by trespassing over the same and subsequently when the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police for necessary help but the police authorities failed to take any action in the matter and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the suit is filed in time. 3.10 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and there is no cause of action to the suit. 3.11 After entertaining the objections raised by the plaintiff, learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The validity of said order is called in question in this revision petition on the following grounds: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 The impugned order passed by learned Judge is totally illegal, unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts have time and again held that, the Plaint has to be read as whole and not in parts. In the instant case, the Trial court has erred in coming to the conclusion that, the Plaintiff/ Respondent has a cause of action merely because he has stated in his plaint that, the Defendants disturbed his possession over the schedule property on 20/02/2020. In order for the Plaintiff to get the right to sue the Defendants, he has to state in unequivocal words as to when he came into possession of the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to state that, the right to sue would accrue to the Plaintiff only when he has clearly stated about the date of coming into possession of the property and also the alleged date of interference. In absence of either of them, the Plaintiff would not have the cause of action to file a suit against the Defendants. It is submitted that, the Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that, the alleged lease agreement was registered on 13/02/2020 exactly 12 days before institution of the suit in question. This goes on to show that, the alleged agreement has been registered only for the purpose of instituting the suit. Factually, the Petitioner who resides in the schedule property never once saw the Respondent entering the premises, therefore, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 question of the latter being in possession doesn't arise at all. The observation made by the Hon'ble Trial Court that, the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 has nowhere denied or disputed the allegation of obstruction of Respondent/Plaintiff's possession on 20/02/2020 is wholly misplaced. In fact, the Petitioner has clearly stated that, the Respondent is a total stranger to the property and has filed the said suit at the instigation of Mr.Srinidhi Patel. Therefore, the finding of the Trial court is erroneous. It is submitted that, the courts while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 have to look into both plaint and the documents produced by the plaintiff along with it to back the averments made by him before arriving the conclusion. Bald pleadings without any document/material have no legal sanctity at all. In the instant case, the Respondent/Plaintiff has not placed a single document to show that, he's in possession of the schedule property. In absence of such documents, the Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the Petitioner and rejected the plaint at the threshold. It is submitted that, the Defendants have neither in their written statements nor in the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) have admitted that, the Plaintiff/respondent has possessory right over the schedule property and the observation made by the court in that regard is wrong. The Defendants have out rightly denied the possession of the Plaintiff, both symbolically and actual. As a matter of fact, other tenants have been - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 inducted in the schedule property and they are in peaceful possession of the property. This clearly shows that, the Hon'ble Trial Court has not considered the application in proper light. It is submitted that, the suit filed by the Plaintiff is frivolous and vexatious concealing material facts from the Court. Going by the pleadings in the plaint, one can surmise that the suit of the Plaintiff is clearly barred by law. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is nothing but an outcome of clever drafting and the Hon'ble Trial Court ought have given a meaningful reading of the pleadings and deciphered the real cause of action and the Court ought to have nipped the same in the bud. 5. Smt. Nandini, learned counsel for the petitioner representing Sri. Bhargav V. reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that by way of specific admission by the plaintiff that he came into the possession of the suit property after filing the suit. Therefore, the suit for bare injunction is per se not maintainable and there is no cause of action to the suit. 6. None appears for the respondent. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 7. Under such circumstances, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. Admittedly the cause of action paragraph would make out a case for the plaintiff to proceed with the suit. Further, a registered lease deed is placed on record executed by the owner of the property namely Sri. Srinidhi Patel. 9. If the defendant is the owner of the property other than the title what has been made out by Sri. Srinidhi Patel, it is for the defendant to file appropriate suit seeking necessary declaration from the Court or to take necessary action against the plaintiff in accordance with law and throw the plaintiff out of the property. 10. As such, the dismissal of the application by the Trial Court based on the Averments made in the plaint is just and proper, which requires no interference in this revision petition. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53021 CRP No. 388 of 2022 11. Hence, following order: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46